Literary speed dating st paul
For instance, a Gentile could probably appeal to any court (maybe even a Jewish court) with the defense that they are not even a Jew. Paul is otherwise vague as to where he persecuted (he was never in Judea when he was a persecutor, according to Gal. Citizens of Damascus have had the power to appeal to the Damascene authorities and Damascene law to exempt themselves from Jewish arrest warrants, although (a) Jewish inhabitants, like many others, in Damascus, did not necessarily have Damascene citizenship (you did not have it merely by living there), and so would be subject to Jewish law unless the Damascenes banned that and there is no evidence they did; and (b) any Jew who used that tactic to escape would likely be shunned as an apostate, betraying Jewish law, and could no longer associate with fellow Jews—unless their fellows agreed the warrant was unjust.Moreover, Paul actually implies his base of operations was Damascus (Gal. So in Damascus what Paul could or couldn’t do would be a complex political question, and not a cut-and-dried matter of law.So why do we regard of the letters to be authentic?Because unlike the forgeries, we can say several things about what are regarded as the six authentic letters of Paul (usually there are said to be seven, but I think arguments for Philemon being a forgery are sufficient to warrant at least agnosticism, as it is such an unusual letter in the corpus, and does have telltale signs of later invention: see Robert Price, That third point is important, because the letters explicitly present themselves internally as having been written in the 50s A. So the congruence of that fact with their content totally ignoring later existing doctrinal and tradition battles in the Church is very likely if the 50s is indeed when they were written.I cannot ascertain his qualifications in the field. Examine thousands of cases, and you will find persons claimed to exist, overwhelmingly actually existed. That entails that for any random person claimed to exist that you pick out of a hat, the prior odds are quite high they actually existed (, Chapter 6.2 and 6.5). Because it’s shaky if you can only collect two or four members in the set you intend to use, because with such low counts, statistical anomalies are highly likely, and therefore any ratio you generate is going to have margins of error so great as to negate any utility of the set.To challenge that starting point, you need to show that Paul belongs to a reference class whose members are most often mythical (or at least half of whose members are). This is why I used the Rank-Raglan set for Jesus: for that we have fifteen members.And all extra-biblical evidence for Paul, which is not based on the letters attributed to him, derives from Acts and no other source (either by using Acts as a source, or embellishing it’s tales with more mythology about Paul).So on those counts, Jesus and Paul are in the same evidential boat: there is nothing attesting them that counts as independent of Acts, and Acts is wholly unreliable as a source of historical facts in this matter.
I can’t even think of a single example of an ancient forger successfully ignoring all the central doctrinal and tradition disputes of their own day merely to produce a convincing period-accurate but thereby contemporarily-irrelevant document.Paul implies he was hunted by the Damascene authorities once he converted, which suggests the Damascenes were actually endorsing the enforcement of Jewish law there (against, as they would see it, troublemaking Jews), and thus annoyed when Paul switched sides. Desperate to avoid this fate for the argument, defenders of a mythic Paul will resort to insisting the Gospel of Mark should mention Paul.The Romans, meanwhile, wouldn’t care, as long as Roman citizens weren’t being arrested, and the Jewish court didn’t overstep its bounds. I cannot fathom a single reason why, or where on earth in the narrative that fact would ever come up.All that considered, that a Paul wrote those letters in the 50s A. Robert Price has on occasion argued that Galatians, for example, was forged as a rebuttal to Acts.
One can sort of make that fit, since indeed one is definitely responding to the other. 27 and 61, and the index, “gerrymandering (a theory)”).Most Detering-style arguments are based on claiming hundreds of interpolations in these letters that conveniently and circularly support Detering’s conclusions, all based on a series of assumptions about the second century history of the Church, when in fact almost everything we know about that is speculation, not established fact. He thus falls into the common trap of all bad historians: any theory you can gerrymander to fit all the evidence must be true. There is some dispute whether this agreement was already being altered before the war.The more assumptions you have to rely on, and the more conveniently complex they are, the lower the prior probability of your thesis. For example, the Talmud and the Gospel of John both claim the Jews had lost the right to execute without Roman permission 40 years before the war, but that number, coming only from the Talmud, is suspiciously theological, and the evidence of Jewish trials and executions in the 30s and 40s is more than extensive enough to disprove such a legend; although they may have gotten the date wrong (or Roman permission may have been so easy to get it never even got mentioned). Even his story of Ananus getting into trouble for executing James refers only to his without imperial permission, and it’s unclear which step in that process was a violation, e.g.Paul may well have been the apostle’s adopted pen name, the Mark Twain to his Samuel Clemens. (Would that we had such evidence for Jesus.) You can only assume “the evidence for Paul’s historicity is equivalent to that for the historicity of Jesus” if you assume the letters are forged.